11–20 of 228 posts
It's not that I disagree with the points brought up by this article (how could I! We've known these things to be true for years!), but I'm worried about the leap that people make, namely that military action isn't necessary. It's hard to imagine any effective strategy that doesn't involve killing people in Syria. It's disgusting, necessary, and -- I willingly admit -- not sufficient.
So, it seems that the only way to fight this was is to change their minds by asking assistance from the peaceful Muslim groups. We can discriminate Daesh and Muslims, and that only shows the monsters they say we are. We can bomb Daesh, which only encourages more to join their cause. Worst case, we can nuke the whole area of Iraq and Syria where Daesh has power, and that would only show every Muslim in the world that…
I disagree. The last time we tried that went horribly wrong; we watched and negotiated and "waged the war of ideology" too patiently while Hitler grew in power, until ultimately the Nazis had to be fought and slaughtered and condemned without mercy. If history repeated itself, we would be wise to intervene faster instead of twiddling our thumbs on the sidelines. And we'd know that waging any kind of ideological war w…
So, it seems that the only way to fight this was is to change their minds by asking assistance from the peaceful Muslim groups. We can discriminate Daesh and Muslims, and that only shows the monsters they say we are. We can bomb Daesh, which only encourages more to join their cause. Worst case, we can nuke the whole area of Iraq and Syria where Daesh has power, and that would only show every Muslim in the world that…
Problem with this is that the most prominent moderate Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, was utterly smashed by the military counter-coup in Egypt. To many Islamists, it seemed to prove that a political route to power was untenable.
Though I agree that we have to bridge the gap. The us vs. them rhetoric is toxic.
It's important to note that ISIS, al Qaeda, al nusra etc. are Sunni movements and are bitterly opposed to Shi'ism. The rise of Shi'a political power, led by Iran since 1980, poses a huge ideological threat.
What we're seeing today is a tiny group of very clever, highly motivated people, patiently watching for opportunities to sow chaos because they believe it will tip the scales eventually toward a Caliphate. They are hugely aided by technology and by the West's earnest desire to integrate the East.
However, I believe the ISIS is doomed to failure. There are only so many young people willing to sacrifice everything for fanatic dreams of afterlife fulfillment as payment for promises of improving the here-now. Most youth, in other words, aren't that stupid. ISIS is siphoning off a certain kind of malcontents who make good fodder for the cannons, but history has shown that this approach is not sustainable. The Muslim world is already showing signs of backlash against the constant images of extreme violence, and reformists continue to call for tolerance and dialogue as the only true solution to territorial and ideological differences.
Whether the Levant succumbs to unending civil war for the next few decades, or is ultimately dominated by a set of secular dictatorships that suppress the jihadists, or can they achieve peaceful multiplayer democracy--these are questions to which no one has the answers.
The fact that the EU’s replacement rate is 1.59 children per couple and the continent needs substantial levels of immigration to maintain a productive workforce The idea here is that all people are the same, and all you need to do is shoehorn enough to keep the economy going. Beyond the complete lack of humanity in the outlook that we are like barrels of brent, it's simply wrong. If this was the case, the entire worl…
Indeed. And there seems, to me, to be something nihilistic in the idea that Europeans should simply let immigrants replace them. Maybe instead, European nations should look into instituting domestic policies that encourage the population to maintain a healthy replacement rate.
The article appears to be implying that Western nations should not make war against Daesh because "that's what they want." Well, the status quo of surveillance, arrests, and half-hearted airstrikes isn't stopping them. There seems something profoundly suciidally nihilistic in the idea that Europe should simply do nothing different and simply be more and more welcoming as attacks happen in an attempt to appease extremists until at last Europe is no longer populated by Europeans.
On the timescale of centuries and millenia, it's amazing how little has changed in the past thousand years. This could be just another couple chapters in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (Which, for those who don't know, covers mostly in later chapters the European nations and the various Muslim empires.)
On the other hand I would like to see this study that shows that increase in the level of education and occupation doesn't do much. I suspect the issue is more subtle: in that many immigrants coming from the former colonies of France don't really identify as French (even after a couple generations) and don't fully accept the so-called 'republican values'.
The fact that many of Portuguese origin are converting to radical Islam seems to me as a further symptom that the power of Jihadism actually stems from socio-economical marginalization.
It's not that I disagree with the points brought up by this article (how could I! We've known these things to be true for years!), but I'm worried about the leap that people make, namely that military action isn't necessary. It's hard to imagine any effective strategy that doesn't involve killing people in Syria. It's disgusting, necessary, and -- I willingly admit -- not sufficient.
I disagree, one is actually described in the article:
"[For] the youth of the nation are closer to the innate nature [of humans] on account of the rebelliousness within them."
Do you think capitalism/democracy/whatever mix we have in the West does a good job of preventing these people fighting for "Jihad"?
We don't really give young people (say ages 15-25, before males are fully emotionally developed) a chance to "rebel safely". We don't even have a definition of what it could be! I'll just leave it here, there are many options where to go from there, I think.
It actually reminds of "drug education" we had in high school. The guy was a social worker who worked with people on drugs, gave them clean syringes, put them on methadone, etc. His idea basically was, it's perfectly cool if you want to try it, but it's better to understand the risks and wait a little bit, until you grow older. I think it was very sane approach (and very counter-intuitive to people who support war on drugs and "say no" and similar things). Maybe the same should be done with weapons and war, and if someone still wants to try the war, send him as a journalist to war zone.
Recently I had another related weird idea: Someone should write a sci-fi story about a society which puts its youths through a very strict, military like institution. It would then be revealed that the whole purpose of the institution is to make young people rebel against authority, in a safe environment. That would be akin to a successful graduation exam, because the society would believe that those people who do that are going to be the best citizens.
(You can also read my earlier comment on the topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10572797)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The last time we tried that went horribly wrong; we watched and negotiated and "waged the war of ideology" too patiently while Hitler grew in power, until ultimately the Nazis had to be fought and slaughtered and condemned without mercy. If history repeated itself, we would be wise to intervene faster instead of twiddling our thumbs on the sidelines. And we'd know that waging any kind of ideological war w…
But how long did it take for the whole of Europe to mend the damage of WWII, both physical and political? Germany has been left effectively occupied and divided for 45 years after the end of the war. We're talking about an industrialized country, which shared a very similar culture for the most part with the occupying powers. How do you think the post-WWIII would go in the Middle East? Do you think Syria will meekly…
In any case it would depend on whether a post WWIII and independent(ish) Syria, much like the post WWII Germany, makes the prudent decision to outlaw and taboo the fanaticism that got it into that situation in the first place.
Conclusively, most religion is moronic and extreme religion is extremely moronic. It's going to get much worse before it gets better and probably not better in our lifetimes or at least this decade.
If Paris was horrible, imagine what they could do in the USA where guns are super easy to collect. They could wipe out entire malls in an afternoon.
It's not that I disagree with the points brought up by this article (how could I! We've known these things to be true for years!), but I'm worried about the leap that people make, namely that military action isn't necessary. It's hard to imagine any effective strategy that doesn't involve killing people in Syria. It's disgusting, necessary, and -- I willingly admit -- not sufficient.
It's also hard to imagine how such killing doesn't simply fertilize the soil of radicalization.
I swear this is the late 1930's all over again. "Surely Herr Hitler will get tired of invading countries before he gets to France. Surely military action will only anger him more..."